GOP Political Darwinism: Who's Adapting and Who's Going Extinct?

On Sunday, conservative columnist David Brooks showed us why is one of the few on the right who seems to have a grasp of the main problems currently plaguing the Republican Party:

BROOKS: The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan. They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane.

Brooks is one of the few conservative voices who have shown to be a lot more right than wrong over the past few years when it comes to the ever-shifting dynamics in American politics (recall he was one who thought Obama should run from the beginning). Same goes for conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan and some of the GOP governors (Crist, Huntsman, etc) who have been smart enough to realize that working with President Obama makes a lot more sense than trying to obstruct or showboat (like Jindal or Boehner or Cantor).

That got me thinking, if you think of American politics as just another group that is subject to the principles of Darwinism (or at least a form of political Darwinism), who are those GOP/conservative figures who seem to be adapting to the dramatically changing environment and likely to survive, versus those who are either extinct or likely headed there?